Monday, May 07, 2007

(The full report is now available online from the UNCC Center for Transportation Policy Studies. Folks at the center reported some problems with it, however, so if you can't open it, try again later.This links to the center's home page, where there's a link to the report.)

Are Charlotte's bus system costs way out of line for similar cities?

Does the cost for building the South Corridor light rail line make it among the most expensive in the country?

Have the South Corridor construction costs gone up so much that it stands out among public projects as bloated and wasteful?

If you only read the John Locke Foundation's data, or listen only to AM talk radio, or believe everything someone tells you in the grocery store line -- or in the comments section of this blog -- you're going to answer YES, YES and YES.

And you'll be wrong. So says a new research report from Edd Hauser. Hauser is founding director of UNC Charlotte's Center for Transportation Policy Studies, and he has a lengthy and impressive pedigree in transportation engineering and planning, including master's and Ph.D. degrees from N.C. State in transportation engineering and a master's in regional planning from UNC. He helped found the Institute of Transportation Research and Education (ITRE) at UNC, was an assistant state highway administrator at the N.C. Department of Transportation and worked in the private sector for almost a decade, with Kimley-Horn and Associates.

He happened to see a March 26 City Council meeting at which Charlotte Area Transit System chief Ron Tober and City Manager Pam Syfert gave their version of the effect on city taxes and CATS if a proposal to eliminate the county's half cent sales tax for transit succeeds.

"Emotions are running amok in this. I wanted to start looking at the data," Hauser told me today. He and colleagues at the CRPS started looking at the numbers. "Our objective was to layout relevant data. I had no idea what it would look like when I started."

His report isn't available online yet, but here's a link to an executive summary. (Hauser points out a typo. In the bulleted paragraph "Construction Cost Estimating," the phrase "the original project cost" should read "the original project cost estimate.")

He found CATS' bus operations are comparable to, and in some cases are more economical than those in comparable cities, including four others in North Carolina, using three widely accepted measures of cost. He found CATS per-mile costs for light rail construction are in the middle of other cities with recent LRT projects.

He looked at metro areas from 300,000 to 1 million population, but only three of those had light rail transit operations so he also looked at metro areas roughly Charlotte's size with more than a million population. He looked at operating expenses per passenger mile, operating expenses per vehicle revenue mile and cost per passenger trip.

For areas of 300,000 to a million, CATS' bus operations ranked No. 2 out of 10 in operating expenses per passenger mile; No. 3 in cost per passenger trip; No. 4 in operating expenses per VRM.

He also compared CATS with bus systems in Raleigh, Greensboro, Durham and Winston-Salem, "with all four systems in total having fewer operational buses than the Charlotte system," the full report notes. CATS ranked No. 3 in operating expenses per VRM, No. 4 in operating expenses per passenger mile, and last in cost per passenger trip.

He looked at Charlotte's capital costs for its light rail construction, compared with 9 other new transit projects, and converted all costs to 2007 dollars. In cost per mile, CATS ranked 6, with $48 million per mile. More expensive per mile were St. Louis ($56 million), Dallas, ($60 million), Phoenix ($65 million), and Seattle ($179 million).

Finally, he looked at other regional transportation construction projects, to see how much they cost above their original estimate. The current estimate for the U.S. 29-601 Connector is 305% ABOVE the original estimate. That for the northwest segment of I-485 is 584% ABOVE the original estimate. The current estimate for the U.S. 29-N.C. 49 Connector is 327% ABOVE the estimate. The third runway at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is 180% above the original estimate.

The CATS South Corridor line is 109% above the estimate.

(Note: "original estimate" is what you get from the engineers after thorough study. The estimates given before the 1998 sales tax referendum were projections, not specific estimates for specific routes, with a specified number of stations, etc., from engineers. Why would anyone who knows anything about public projects and how they're funded think they'd be precise engineering studies, when there was no funding at that point for study or design? In other words, of course they were flabby. Get over it. And all the brouhaha because the costs weren’t given in inflation adjusted dollars? Maybe that SHOULD be standard practice but it isn’t. Hauser says typically construction project estimates aren’t adjusted for expected inflation.)

I hope he'll be able to put the whole report online. Hauser is a researcher who looks at the data and then draws his conclusion, rather than drawing a conclusion and then seeking data to support it. "A lot of information is put into the media based on an incomplete look at relevant data," he said.

What should you conclude? If you think any spending on light rail transit, or on a public bus system, or both is a waste of money, none of that information will change your mind. But if you're under the impression CATS is a lot more inefficient than other transit systems, then consider whether you've been getting only part of the story, from whoever you're getting your information from.

141
comments:

Anonymous
said...

AMEN MARY! Finally! I have been waiting for something like this to pop up. It is so true how mis-informed and well, stupid the general public is about most issues. The "negative" and over-dramatized media doesn't help either - they just want a good story and they don't care about the repercussions. Most people who are pro-transit are not againts building adequate roads and infrastructure. I wish people would realize that roads are getting more expensive to build/widen, gas is not getting cheaper, and you cannot pave your way out of congestion. Transit is about giving people options. It is also about curbing future congestion rates and helping our city grow in a smarter way.

"Finally, he looked at other regional transportation construction projects, to see how much they cost above their original estimate. The current estimate for the U.S. 29-601 Connector is 305% ABOVE the original estimate. That for the northwest segment of I-485 is 584% ABOVE the original estimate. The current estimate for the U.S. 29-N.C. 49 Connector is 327% ABOVE the estimate. The third runway at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport is 180% above the original estimate.

The CATS South Corridor line is 109% above the estimate."

So what do we learn from the above numbers?

First, government-run construction projects almost NEVER come in under budget. The ones cited above are all waaay over budget. Way to go, government! [shakes head]

Second, comparing percents to percents is bad math, pure and simple. If your budget is 1 and it costs you 2, then you went 100% over budget. If your budget is 100 and it costs you 150, then you went 50% over budget. Clearly the second example represents worse overspending since 50 more was spent, rather than 1 more. How much money do those percentages represent?

Third, I don't see where either of you cite the number of people who will use each project. Obviously, I-485 will carry tens of thousands of cars a day. The US 29/NC 49 connector will be used by a huge number of people every day, nights and weekends... same with the US 29/601 connector. And the new runway at the airport will serve a large number of flights every day (not to mention, THAT'S being paid for by people and companies who actually use the airport). The light rail, on the other hand, will serve ONLY people who live in the socially-engineered, taxpayer-subsidized South Corridor. So how about an analysis of dollars per user-mile for each project?

I can answer that last question for you: No one who is pro-light rail will offer up an analysis of dollars per user-mile, because light rail is the white elephant in this case. Cherrypicking the numbers that support only your side of the story is a common tactic of those who favor taxing everyone for a project that will only support a few.

For the anon poster above me, "transit is about giving people options" is a canard. People who want options, particularly very expensive ones, should pay for those options themselves and not expect everyone else to foot the bill.

Oh, and by the way: No one with any grasp whatsoever on reality has any illusions that light rail in Charlotte is going to reduce congestion on a single road.

Oh, and by the way: No one with any grasp whatsoever on reality has any illusions that widening roads in Charlotte is going to ultimately reduce congestion. It might for a few years, but the road will eventually be clogged once again.

Oh my God, government programs are always over budget. I am sure that halted the printing presses at the Observer!!!

Clayj was right on point. One cannot draw simple inference from percentages. To draw proper conclusions the magnitude of the data points used in the percentage must be known.

In terms of value per dollar, we are way off track with LTR. Let's look at what will accompany the transit tax repeal on the November ballot...a $620 MM bond whopper from CMS. We had a nice 10% county property tax increase 2 years ago and we are looking smack in the face of at least 10% more just for bond maintenance. Our nice little 1/2 transit cent sales tax would have paid that off need next year (1998-2008). A perfect example of misplaced priorities.

Our illustrious county commision also decided to give us a FREE baseball stadium. Well, almost free as the tax payers will pony up a cool $8.0 MM to "rebate" the loans taken out by the Knights for infrastrucutre. I am sure we'll get a good deal on those loans too. Again...PRIORITIES. PRIORITIES

So we are funding hundreds of millions of local revenues into LTR and other nice-to-have ammenties when we cannot fully fund our police needs, our prosecutors needs and our children's school needs. Worse, our politicians playing us like fiddles with bait and switch techniques: increased spending on LTR and foo-foo amenities and when it comes to funding basic services they increase the property tax and tell Joe Citizen it was for public safety (ala Sue Burgess on WBT). True hypocrits

Our local leaders are spending money as if they had printing presses in city hall. Repeal the 1/2 cent transit tax and give them the message that our priorities are sorely out-of-whack and we need to get our priorities straight!

The half cent tax only generates about $60-70 million per year. 3/4 of that money goes towards the bus system, which has been experiencing an increase in ridership every year. The rest of the money goes towards the transit system. That little piece of money is very important. Most of the money for transit comes from the Feds.

Yeah, lets vote down the tax just like people voted down the school bonds. What message did you give them? Has anything changed? No - now everything is even more expensive. You know, you don't have to live in Mecklenburg County. If your not with the program go somewhere else.

I would just like to point out that transportation IS a major priority just like schools and police.

I would also like to point out that the next section of Independence Boulevard to be widened, from Albermarle Road to Idewild Road is going to cost $177.4 million for 1.4 wiles. Yes, 1.4 miles. Compare that to the almost 10 mile long light rail line and it would cost over $1 billion (compared to $400 million).

This is not the only line to be built (unless the tax is repealed). It would be like never finishing 485. Only then would it be pretty useless. We are trying to move Charlotte FOWARD. Instead of ruining this city's future and putting us BACKWARDS, please go to another county or somewhere else. Save us all.

"The half cent tax only generates about $60-70 million per year. 3/4 of that money goes towards the bus system, which has been experiencing an increase in ridership every year."

This sounds good, but it really isn't if you understand how CATS brings in money. As has been posted here in the past, user fees (i.e., fares) only cover 14% of the CATS budget. 14%. The other 86% is covered by tax dollars... which means that all of us who aren't riding the buses are subsidizing the average bus rider to the tune of $200-$400 per month, on average.

What we need, before we talk about expanding light rail or even buses, is a CATS system that is more self-supporting. This means higher fares and better, less wasteful spending. The idea that only 14% of CATS' budget is covered by fares would be funny if it weren't so absolutely pathetic.

Mary can lay out the facts here, but we know the same 4-5 people are going to revert to their foaming Rhino Time/WBT fed nonsense. Light rail and an expanded bus system are going to be an asset to this city whether or not one uses the system, just like schoold benefit even those that don't have kids. That's why I will support both keeping the transit tax and the school bonds. I say onward and upward for a more progressive, forward thinking and urban Charlotte. And yes, just like posted befor, if you don't like it, the county line is less than 15 miles away. Do us a favor and park yourselve out there.

The thing that absolutely KILLS me is that it is a HALF CENT SALES TAX (only half a cent and it does not effect your property tax). I don't consider moving this city foward as "wasteful spending" but of course, people like you will think everything is "wasteful spending". Maybe you should be an accountant, if your not one already.

If police and schools and such are a priority, then answer this simple question:

When city council increased property taxes last year, why did they say it was for public safety needs? Why not for increased LTR infrastructure needs? Reason: people would have been in an uproar since they have been fooled into thinking the 1/2 cent sales tax is paying for everything.

Sue Burgess ADMITTED that the city INCREASED transit related spending by $50 MM. But that was NOT the reason for the property tax increase. She said it, not me.

Don't buy the hype. Keeping the 1/2 cent sales tax will NOT keep property taxes down for LTR spending. City Council has already demonstrated they are willing to increase property taxes for LTR anyway!!! Why not vote it down...the property taxes are going up anyway.

There is a significant difference between the LYNX line and the Independence Blvd widening: People will actually use the road.

Independence Blvd carries over 100,000 trips a day, the LRT under best case scenarios (and they are being so optimistic) will carry about a 1/10 of that. It will probably carry air, but anyways...

I'd bet a year's wages, that after the novelty wears off, in no case will the LYNX line be used to half of capacity; that the line will draw few new riders to the system; and that the line will have no impact on congestion and air pollution.

"And you wonder why Charlotte is considered a joke of a city. It is just a refuge for money hungry people."

Who, exactly, considers Charlotte a "joke" of a city?

As far as money-hungry goes, guilty as charged. The fact that you consider Charlotte a "refuge" for money-hungry people just goes to show how far the current epidemic of urban tax abuse extends. If you want to give your money away to people who will use it wastefully, be my guest. Just stop assuming that everyone is as selfless as you.

I hardly ride on Independence Blvd. Why should my tax money be wasted on that one mile stretch? Does that logic seem stupid? Yes. So does that for those of you who say you will never use light rail. Everyone benefits from all these projects in the long run. Quit being so short sighted you anti tax/anti city people.

Anon @ 11:26: You may not drive on Independence, but you do use SOME roads, yes?

The difference here is that most of us will never use the light rail, but ALL of us use roads to some extent... even those who do not drive or ride a bus rely on the roads for delivery of groceries, commerce, etc. The light rail will do nothing but move people up and down South Blvd. It's not in any way AT ALL a vital system; it's an expensive, frivolous toy. Roads are totally vital to our economy. I'm not saying we should expand them willy-nilly, but I'd rather see money spent on them than on light rail.

BTW, the money used to pay for roads is state money, not local. Also, it mostly comes from the gas tax, so drivers tend to be the ones paying for the roads to begin with. The transit tax, conversely, is being paid by EVERYONE in Mecklenburg County, even if there's ZERO chance they'll ever ride the light rail or even a bus.

Honestly, some of you pro-light rail people are obviously putting no thought at all into your arguments. When presented with logical arguments against it, all you seem to do is to stick your fingers in your ears and go "la la la la". Keep it up and the transit tax will be repealed come November.

What you may consider wasteful, others may not. You only think transit is wasteful because you are short-sighted and fail to see the bigger picture. Your just another victim of the over-dramatized, exaggerated, negative media here in Charlotte.

You anti-transit people always use the same, tired excuses. Your solutions aren't even an option. You are the ones who go "la la lalalalalalala". Most of us pro-transit people are NOT against roads! We see the need for transit in the future and we realize that roads are not the only solution.

Great, now CATS is officially just like CMS -- defenders compare it to basket cases to make it look good.

Charlotte is not -- in fact -- a city with over 1 million in population. Just like CMS is not an urban school system.

The half-cent tax costs every man, woman, and child in Mecklenburg $60 per year. That is $240 per year for a family of four. Talk of CATS' costs is meaningless without that baseline.

There is another very real problem with CATS that Hauser does not seem to see. By comparing CATS' operations with that of larger cities and finding that CATS "compares well" he confirms that CATS -- perhaps mass transit in general -- has a negative economy of scale.

This means as Charlotte grows -- and we all agree the Charlotte WILL grow -- CATS will become more expensive, not less.

If that isn't an argument to repeal the half-cent and come up with a new transportation plan, I do not know what is.

UD, it's only money: so donate your total earnings to the cause (after taxes of course).

The argument is not about money, it never is, it is about waste.

CMS is about children. Whether or not your children attend, you benefit from the overall increase in educational levels of others. The problem with CMS is waste in programs and capital expenditures. The bureaucrats are in it for the money, not education of children.

So there is no comparison with rail lite. I do not benefit from the fact UD or anyone will ride the rail. Not directly, not indirectly. I do benefit from roads. Everything we consume or use travels on a road. Which is not to say there is not waste there.

However, rail lite is a political choice which benefits a limited few, but some, as UD has pointed out, are so blind to the truth they continue to try to convince those of us who can actually see, that we are wrong.

I am reminded of the recent story by Ed Williams wherein he points out the tree huggers of 30 years ago, who fought so hard against nuclear power generators, have now changed their minds. Oh, they were wrong. Gee, I knew that then. Now they will tell us CO2 is bad. Yet they don't even know the history and science of climate change.

Ah, the common received wisdom. Those lacking the ability to learn assume they have learned by following the crowd.

Everything you use and consumer travels on a road? It may also travel on a freight TRAIN, or an airplane, and then a road. Which gets me to my point: Mass transit is just as important as roads when it comes to city infrastructure. You need a mix. It really is funny to me that people think roads ALONE are still the answer, despite insanely high gas prices and the fact that it has failed in other cities before (Atlanta).

This line will carry even more people as it is extended into the northern part of the county. If it is extended, it will reach a lot more people. You will have stops in the University area, UNCC, North Davidson district, Uptown, SouthEnd, South Charlotte area, and Pineville. Then there is the commuter rail line that will go north towards the Lake.

If you think by repealing this tax more money will go to roads, or you will send a message about it - think again because you won't. The roads that need to be widened and fixed here are state roads. Our governer keeps pulling money out of the Highway Trust fund and NCDOT is run by a bunch of good ole boys who could care less about the urban areas of this state. Eastern NC has so many bypasses built, planned, or under construction it is ridiculous.

Charlotte may not be a city of 1 million people now, but it will be within the next decade or so. Better to implement transit now before it is TOO late and even more expensive.

This is sad because the line hasn't even opened yet and everyone is screaming failure. They want to repeal the tax and they don't even know what the outcome is yet. I know your close-minded and thick-headed, but come on, atleast give it a chance first.

Let's see, this fellow worked for NC DOT, a government entity where he was surrounded by bureaucrats. Then he worked for Kimley-Horn, a government contractor where he worked for bureaucrats. Now he's at UNCC, a government institution filled with big-government advocates like David "the Brit twit who's full of ****" Walters. So surprise surprise! He fudges numbers to claim CATS is "efficient". And he pulls off the old lemmings canard ("We spend too much for roads, so we should therefore also spend too much for rail.) Of course the difference is that everyone uses roads, and roads are paid for by the people who use them via car registrations, vehicle taxes and gas taxes.

Oh, and if you want to give me an "option" or a "choice" regarding transit, LET ME KEEP MY PAYCHECK AND MAKE THE CHOICE MYSELF!!!

Like the other poster said, Charlotte is a refuge for money hungry people.

You know what, since I don't have kids, I don't think I am going to pay taxes for schools anymore. It is not my choicd to pop out children like a pez-dispenser. It is my choice not to have kids, soooo LET ME KEEP MY PAYCHECK AND MAKE THE CHOICE MYSELF!!! WAAAAHHHH!!!! GOO GGGAAGAGA@!!!! sniff sniff

It was very smart of you to post an executive summary without the supporting data to have a "conversation" that can't be based on analysis of the numbers.

Considering how your post of Todd Litman's work and nawdry-LH were eaten alive when their documentation was made available for analysis, it makes sense to move your discussion into the shadows.

I'm sure you'll be honest enough to post the whole thing when it becomes available - right?

I also like how you explain away the original "estimates" that were used to sway voters as not even estimates at all. I'm sure that makes them feel less lied to.

The city has commissioned a survey of how Mecklenburg county residents feel on both the school bonds and the transit tax. Those are the numbers that interest me.

Who knows, maybe the Charmeck voters do want trains 70-30%? If so, we can all go home.

But, wrap that up in a nice little package with the rising murder rate, lack of accountability at any level of government, lawsuits against govco for racial discrimination at DSS and illegal use of bond money for baseball, along with the scare tactics of government, and I still think we're in for an interesting election cycle this year.

"I do not benefit from the fact UD or anyone will ride the rail. Not directly, not indirectly."

I don't think that is true at all. If transportation isn't available for people who can't afford cars who do you think pays? Welfare, madicade, housing subsidies in various forms. There are lots of social costs from not providing the population with a means to get from home to work

Why do you keep comparing transportation dollars to school dollars? They are completely different and benefit the city in different ways. Transportation is jsut as important as schools. It is a tired argument and a stupid one at that.

Oh where to start.First of all, I graduated from UNCC in Engineering at let me tell you first hand the engineering education for a Civil Engineer is at best mediocre (I gained my experience from actually working in the engineering field while attending classes). I had engineers working under me before I got my lisence because I knew more than they did, since they were never taught basic engineering practices but they could tell me all about artists, composers and women studies!!

When actual engineering classes get cut to add Foriegn languages, humanity classes, etc. to make a "well rounded student", classes that would actually help engineers are cut. No wonder there are so many changes and errors.

Second, the taxes we all pay are not a maximum. All those in favor of raising taxes should just add more to their give and leave us stingy people alone.

Third, to those who think -"You know, you don't have to live in Mecklenburg County. If your not with the program go somewhere else. "I lived in Charlotte for 37yrs. I could say the same for anyone who moved here. We were here first, if you don't like it, why don't you go back from whence you came!! So please don't say such sophomoric comments.

Fourth, "If transportation isn't available for people who can't afford cars who do you think pays? " It shouldn't be the working families trying to support their own families who pay. Can they walk, carpool, ride bike, move closer to where you work, Prius, moped?- as many readers have posted before- there are numerous way to get around if you need to.

Finally, I agree with Lewis- "The argument is not about money, it never is, it is about waste."

If it is roads or LTR, most people would not argue too much if there wasn't so much waste. Being wasteful with one doesn't require you to be wasteful with all. (If everyone jumps off a cliff, are you going to follow?)

I don't care how many children CMS serves. Even if the transit system served 130,000 people you would still be complaining that transit is wasteful spending compared to the amount of people here. I don't have kids so why should I pay taxes for schools? Maybe I find that wasteful spending since the schools are terrible and the children don't care to learn. Plus 130,000 people compared to the 800,000 plus in this county is a very small number, isn't it? (since that is the argument you would use about transit). Your argument "if you want it you pay for it" just doesn't work. Sorry...

Thank goodness I live in Iredell County. Our leaders have the good sense to see the wastefulness that would have resulted upon agreeing to build a LTR station in the southern part of the County. Now, my dollars support the LTR only if I drive to Meck to ride or come to shop in Meck. Again, I'm lucky that the commerce growth is well established in Iredell, so I avoid shopping in Meck so I don't have to support you clowns!

Yeah well Charlotte is not some small, backwoods city anymore. So what you have been here 37 years. Nobody cares if you were hear first. Charlotte is growing and changing and people like you can't stop it. It is different now and you have to adapt or move somewhere else.

Just for the record - Charlotte is a big city - the 20th most populous municipality in the U.S. The federally designated urbanized area houses approximately 1.5 million people. The U.S. Census designation for Charlotte’s Combined Statistical Area estimates approximately 2.2 million people living here – the 19th largest in the US. And we are growing rapidly. Big cities need big transportation choices, including large transit systems of buses and rail to sustain the workforce and the economy. Can you imagine DC, or Boston, or Chicago without transit? Can you name one big city in the world that functions without transit? I just read an interesting article in US News about Los Angeles. “Los Angeles drivers spend less time in traffic now than they did a decade ago, thanks to both mass transit and aggressive traffic management.” LA is “undergoing a veritable transit boom, furiously digging new subway tunnels and expanding a rapid bus system” in addition to better control of traffic signal systems and other traffic management techniques. Charlotte is far from becoming another LA. But the point is that even the most car obsessed cities can realize benefits from developing a blend of transportation choices. Charlotte has a real chance to get it right – not wait until we become more like LA or Atlanta.

Yeah, in Iredell, it's fast growing Mooresville with Lowe's and plenty of other new companies an booming development vs. north Iredell where people still drive tractors on the roads and still think the rest of the world hasn't changed. Give it time and and all the newcomers to the south part of the county cn run some of these Commissioners still living in the '50's out and the rest of the county can join the 21st century just like mecklenburg is finally doing.

To anon who posted:"Nobody cares if you were hear first. Charlotte is growing and changing and people like you can't stop it. It is different now and you have to adapt or move somewhere else."

What is your position when immigrants who want you to only speak their language, study their bible, celebrate their holidays,etc. start saying the same thing to you?

P.S. By the way I did move out of your overtaxed county/state and for a few more weeks i am working in Char/Meck so you won't have me at all for long but I do wish to move back someday after kids are finished with school. I wouldn't mind living like I did in the dorms and apartments while in college after the kids are out.

JAT makes a good point, and one I did not go into because I didn't want my first post to run long: While CATS may compare favorably to other cities' mass transit systems, it's still bleeding money like a stuck pig.

In an imaginary ER, CATS would be the patient who's taken a bullet to the abdomen; other cities would be the patients who've taken TWO bullets to the abdomen. Neither is an enviable situation to be in, and it's disingenuous to hold CATS up as some beacon of efficiency when clearly it isn't.

True, Iredell County is a diverse region, especially when comparing the north to the south. And, yes, the Commissioners may realize years from now that the makeup of their region has changed to warrant support for the LTR. But at least they are using logic when deciding that such a move now is not in the best interest of Iredell, currently and the forseeable future, and are voting the view of the majority of the constituents. Meck leadership is simply forcing the desire of the minority on everyone.

Pete,The appropriate frame for transit planning according to the federal government is the urbanized area, which includes all of Mecklenburg County and all or parts of surrounding counties. Several posters seem to question whether Charlotte (and its metro area) can be considered a big city. It is. And it will only get bigger. The question for this forum is: What should we, the community, do about it? Do we have the courage to face the future? Or do we take pot shots at northerners, southerners, urbanites, suburban dwellers, farmers, public servants, or anyone else that doesn’t agree with us? I think Charlotte is better than that.

As for congestion, LRT will help, not hurt. LRT will provide the capacity equivalent of a new freeway lane in each direction. You may have heard that nature abhors a vacuum. The same can be said of highway capacity in a large, economically vibrant urban area such as Charlotte. Any excess road capacity made available by widening roads or freed up by building transit lines will fill up quickly by latent demand. Check out I-485 in south Charlotte. As cities grow, congestion happens. It’s a sign of a strong economy. Check out the US News article referenced above.

I have lived here for over 20 years and I embrace the diversity that Charlotte is finally beginning to achieve, whether from out of state or out of country. many people come and bring ideas in addition to the ones we have that make this a better community for all of us. I don't know where you're going with the 'study their Bible' question, as I have known many immigrants to be very strong Christians whose faith is even stronger than some of the so called Chirstians that already live here. I see nothing wrong with that. But I digress. The fact is a light rail system and an expanded bus system have just as much value as I-485 and the thrid runway at the airport, therefore I support all three. The South LRT corridor will not only benefit South Boulevard, but I-77 and other parallel roads as well. Congestion is still going to occur, but LRT is going to take hundreds of cars off the highways that would otherwise be out there. Unfortunately, some of you can't see beyond that, so I will not worry about you guys, but instead make sure every voter that agrees with moving Charlotte forward keeps the repeal from happening.

to anon:Let me clarify a little. I am not against immigrants. Diversity is a good thing if you don't impose it on others.

What i was trying to say is- if a group moves into your neighborhood, and their culture is vastly different from yours (muslum, jewish, catholic, etc.), you wouldn't want them to tell you to worship their way or leave.Or lets say- enough foreign speaking people move here and they demand everything be written in Spanish/Italian/Greek, and if you don't like it leave!I say stay worship who/what you want, speak whatever language you must, but don't try and force me to do the same. That's all.

I'm all for learning about new languages/customs but the demand to change would be ridiculous? Agree?

What made America great wasn't trying to be like all other countries around the world. If they were so great , why aren't people trying to get to them?

In comparing the costs for different projects, was terrain and density taken into consideration?

An example- the cost for a 1 mile rail line in say Dallas, Tx (flat) will not cost as much to build as a 1 mile rail line in Salt Lake.

The only real comparison would be same terrain and density served. Everything else is apples to oranges.

Also, I like how in 20 yrs-200,000 more people, 120,000 more dwelling units (1.67 people per unit-doesn't look like many families), 200,000 more jobs (good-all those new people will have a job), 250,000 more cars(everyone driving 1.25 cars? or are at least 50,000 of those cars parked?) and 107,000 more commuters (smart ones who left Char-Meck).

As Mary has taken it upon herself to do some myth busting, I will do a little of my own.

Myth #1: Property taxes will not increase for LTR spending if the 1/2 sales tax remains in place. FALSE. The city council budget in 2006 included $50 MM for increased transit spending for infrastructure. However, they were short of funds for necessary law enforcement personell. The result was a tax increase for the purpose of public safety. An appalling shell game by gov-co. The simple truth: Repeal or no repeal, property taxes will go up for LTR spending (infrastructure, operating costs, etc). They do not have the guts to be honest.

Myth #2: The 1/2 cent sales tax is covering all aspects of LTR. FALSE. City council is spending property tax and other general revenue on LTR. State and Federal funds, taken by force of tax law from citizens, is being used. The "measly" 1/2 cent sales tax is no where near providing the complete funding of this debacle.

Myth #3: Transit will reduce congestion. FALSE. Even CATS admits that congestion will not be signficantly reduced.

I believe the perspective of most anti-LTR people is that our leaders are deliberately avoiding the funding basic services(law & safety, education, etc) in a misguided pursuit to become world class. We can bury our heads in the sand for only so long before these issues come back to haunt us.

"I believe the perspective of most anti-LTR people is that our leaders are deliberately avoiding the funding basic services(law & safety, education, etc) in a misguided pursuit to become world class. We can bury our heads in the sand for only so long before these issues come back to haunt us."

Absolutely. This LRT project is not about transit choice. Its about revenue for the city council and developers. Period.

Mary, since you're so good at finding dewey-eyed stats supporting light rail, please have someone at the paper there do an investigation about Susan Burgess' comment regarding the $50 million.Surely, you must want to know if our city officials are doing something unethical and illegal, right?Please?Its just Susan Burgess. I know you're friends and you don't want to diss her. Its alright; we won't tell.

Hmmm...Ok, I would like to have the option/choice of CATS helicopter transit service. Why not? Isn't it an option or a choice? Everyone seems to be justifying $9.0 billion LTR investment on the premise of option and choice. Call it "Lite Helicopter" and it should be funded without question. Oh, and I only want to pay 14% of it's acutal cost, so please pay up everyone.

Acutally, now that I think of it, I would like to have the option or choice of CATS Space Shuttle Transit. Now that would be way cool. It's an option and a choice so we should fund it, right? Man, it would make us world class...just like we've wanted. Dang, I don't have the dough to pay for it. No problem, I'm willing to cough up 14% and you chumps can get the remainder of the tab.

Our area is being over-run by violent thugs (...8th worst city in US for violent crime), we cannot even prosecute our serious crime (...repeat drunk drivers waiting for trial running people down), and an education system in complete disarray. But, hey, we have transit options and choices we MIGHT use!! We obviously have $9.0 billion to blow.

Welcome to Charlotte people, but please don't look behind the curtains or in the closet, as we have swept our skeletons over there.

C'mon, you're being ridiculous now.Everyone knows you'd have to put the CATS Space Shuttle launch pad in a low income neighborhood. The downtown crowd wouldn't stand for the Pizza Planet shuttle station development to take place so far away from Maaaaaawers Pawk.

Now, give me CATS drag racers and you're on to something. Or what about a rollercoaster? If Paramount would pony up some $ we could make the whole thing the amusement park it should be.

But where would we put the affordable housing? Right next to the Observer!

"I would like to have the option/choice of CATS helicopter transit service."

nah, I don't want that. I'll settle for a govt guaranteed mortgage (via FanieMae, FreddieMac etc.) for my suburban home. A federal subsidy for my single family house in the form of the mortgage interest deduction. A county subsidy in the form of subsisdised water, sewer, police and fire protection. And a state and federal subsidy for road construction to make my suburban lifestyle possible.

I have talked before of the gridlock that the Motivational Speakers Seminar caused last year, that was real, and a glimpse to what future gridlock will be in Downtown.

I think we need to focus on what is happening developmentaly (sp) in the Downtown corridor.

The Uptown Station will be at the rail line and Trade Street. The transportation mall is being modified to allow access from the transit hub up to the rail line.

The EpiCenter project, with its 50 story condo, retail space, movie theatres, commercial space, and hotel will be connected to the rail line.

The Overstreet Mall will be connected directly to EpiCenter, and to the rail and Transportation Mall. The Overstreet Mall will become a major feeder to these connections.

Retail will begin to reestablish itself along those pedestrian traffic patterns, hastening the long sought after return of retail to Downtown.

Most of the major employers will be reached by utilizing the Overstreet Mall, providing climate controlled access to their offices, and transportation.

This is a fundamental change in how the city will be operating in the future.

I envision CATS starting a .50 cent day several times per month to try to entice riders to try the public system. It will be a classic example of developing a way to break an old habit, and develop a new one. As ridership increases, the lost revenue for those .50 cent days will be more than made up.

If the debate here is waste, why is transit the poster boy? There is much more serious waste all around us.

Nothing happened? Do you enjoy paying $50, $60, $70 to fill up your tank? You think this transit tax is expensive... add up how much you pay in gas and service on your car for one year and see how expensive that is!!

If any of you actually watch News 14 Carolina which is a REAL news station (not like the fake, over-dramatized local stations here), they just has a story about how gas prices have caused more people to hop on the bus...

"Near record prices at the gas pumps are sending many people to the mass transit lines.

Charlotte Area Transit System buses are starting to see larger crowds, especially on express lines like the one in northern Mecklenburg County.

Comparing the 77 express route from last year plus the addition of the 48 express, there has been a 21 percent increase in ridership."

Ridership went from 20,000 to 24,000 people. They also interviewed someone who frequently used the express bus and he said once people TRY the bus they realize how convenient, less stressful, and cheaper it is. You pull the transit tax your putting more people on the road and you will see a difference.

A few interesting tidbits from the full report that Mary posted. (Thanks Mary)

Total Spend on Mass Transit since 1998 - $1,040,999.

Total Spend on Roads since 1998 - $1,544,390

Total - $2,585,389

Result - 40% of our transportation funds are being spent on something a tiny percentage of people use.

Can we say misprioritization?

Others...

TABLE 6 - Charlotte ranks 3rd from the bottom in the amount of subsidy per transit rider at 83%. Atlanta ranks best at only 70%. All I ask is that Charlotte's powers that be direct some of their city-envy at trying to be more like Atlanta in this way.

TABLE 7 - The only two systems that have lower rail VRM than bus VRM are Atlanta and DC. Not an apples to apples comparison. Why were they included? The obvious reason they were thrown in there by the researchers would be to have at least a couple of examples where rail appears better than buses. Leave them out and none of the light rail systems are better than buses.

This table also curiously leaves out the total number of people served by the bus systems and train systems in these cities. Why? That's because many more people use the bus than the trains.

TABLE 8 - Yes, Charlotte looks good to these cities. However it is again, not an apples to apples comparison. Charlotte's system is several times the size of the compared cities'. These other cities do not have the economies of scale that Charlotte should have when it comes to operating costs. When looked at that way, the fact that Charlotte is not near the top is disappointing.

Well, it's obvious there are lots of people who have strong opinions about CATS and the transit system, and any number of facts and data presented will not change their minds about it. Let's be clear, this has nothing to do with the system as a whole, and everything to do with the South Corridor project cost overruns, etc. We have a newspaper and local TV news that has fueled the frenzy over every and any issue that has gone wrong with the project, charting every incremental cost increase and design flaw down to the smallest station detail, while highway funding continues to be slashed, projects delayed throughout the region, and capital cost estimates rising though the roof--significantly higher than transit has--yet no coverage of that. Here we have clear data that shows the LRT has been built quite reasonably and relatively cheap on a cost per mile basis compared to peer systems, and it registers not a blip on the radar screen.

Also, no one among these groups is asking or being asked the question of what will happen if the repeal goes through. At the rate of growth in the region, who is going to pay for those hundreds of thousands of people who will move in? Without transit as a component, what will Charlotte look like in 20 or 30 or even 50 years? It's not a pretty picture.

Has CATS made mistakes? Yes. Have those mistakes been portrayed in a fair and even-handed way compared to other local public projects and peer transit systems around the country? No. It's obvious plenty of people have agendas and facts are just considered another inconvenient speedbump on the road to achieving their version of "victory."

Typical old-style-rednecklenburger who hates that urbanity that Charlotte is beginning to adopt. Yeah, keep bringing up those points that the pointy heads at WBT and the Rhino Times bring up and we'll keep ignoring you. On with moving the transit system forward, and all the other amenities of living in a big city.

"We should just say oh well and move forward with the flushing $9.0 billion on LTR?? "

1) its not $9 billion2) its not flushing, no one (at this point) can say how successful the LRT will be at restructuring Charlotte's future growth patterns. (all of this hot air (on both sides) is just speculation. (the success of the interstate was all speculation before it was completed as well)

Anon 7:28 repeatedly asks the same question - why did Charlotte City Council fund $50 M in transit subsidies then blame a tax increase on police?

The answer is politics and media play.

However, if (s)he expects a straight answer from those who say we should throw away the money (on SouthRailLite) and give more to other boondogles supported by the immigrant, socialistic, authoritarian types, then I suggest it will never happen.

What we have seen in the many posts on these blogs is an effort by those supporting waste and misallocation of taxpayer monies, to convince the opposition they are wrong based almost solely on emotional reasons or misleading information.

I use for example the information Nawdry-LH used from the APTA - American Public Transit Association, yet when I made cursory analysis of same, LH made light of the numbers.

Let us be clear - the issue is about stealing from the many to give to the few, using obtuse rationalizations to confuse the issues.

What other appropriations did the city spend something on before public safety. A LOT. The police are one factor. Public infrastructure, inclusing things near the light rail line was another factor. Add social services, water and sewer, and a whole plethora of other city services. Nothing was deliberately spend to intentionally forsake public safety. You are just nitpicking on something just to cry wolf over the light rail bogey man.

Now kiss your John Locke statuette good night and go to bed. I'll make sure the black helicopters don't take you away while you're sleeping.

"Let us be clear - the issue is about stealing from the many to give to the few,"

Stealing is an awfully dramatic word to describe the allocation of a 1/2 cent sales tax via a transparent budgeting process.

The phrase 'give to the few' is certainly true, but this allocation of public $ is no more inequitable than expenditures on roads, water, sewer and police protection in the burbs (all those things cost more to provide in low density urban environments than in high density ones). Public dollars are always allocated 'to the few' -- not everyone benefits from roads, schools or civic infrastructure outside their own neighborhoods.

Ugh, it looks like WSOC is planning to do another one of their sensationalized pieces on the LRT tomorrow and tie it in with the transit tax. I-485 is always over budget and months behind schedule - big whoop. Most construction projects are rarely on time and on budget these days. The costs of construction materials is so high.

Oh don't worry about WSOC. There will be a murder, a car accident or a major storm and they will sensationalize that before they sensationalize the transit issue. Local news is like top-40 radio, play 'the hits' to death. As seen with this blog, LRT issues are 'a hit'.

The issue is Rail Lite. It is not schools, not roads, not parks, not police, not jails, and not sidewalks.

When I write steal, I mean steal.

Government is the legitimized use of force. When it is used to take from one group to give to another it is stealing. It may be legal, but it is not necessarily moral.

The recipients referred to are not the possible riders, as they don't receive anything, but the administration, construction companies and those involved in the land deals.

The fact government is involved only means legalized force is used to make people pay 1/2 percent of their purchases to others.

Those who think this is wonderful, stand up and donate 1% or 10%.What no takers. Of course. You want government to FORCE everyone to pay so you get your project with other people's money.

The reason government is involved in this and similar projects is because those who receive and support, must have government force to take from the general population to pay for something the private market would never pay for.

"The issue is Rail Lite. It is not schools, not roads, not parks, not police, not jails, and not sidewalks."Silly me, I thought the issue was how the govt chooses taxpayer money. I see now, this is simply about personal biases against one public works project. [/sarcasim on/] That makes a lot of sense [/sarcasim off/]

"Government is the legitimized use of force. When it is used to take from one group to give to another it is stealing."

I don't disagree, with this statement at all. My point was that the govt has appropriated $trillions to the benefit of suburban residents (and expense of urbanites) over the years. The LRT is NO different in principle or execution than any suburban road, water or sewer project. Until you can explain how this project deserves to be singled out your posts ring hollow to me.

There are some roads that I pay for that have no benefit to me at all. I never even use them and I have never driven on them nor will I ever have to. However, I can see how it would benefit the city. Same thing for mass transit - I can see the benefits. That is the difference between you and I. Plus, the line hasn't even opened yet and everyone is acting like it is dooms day. Give it a chance at the very least!

You cannot deny that South Boulevard already looks a lot better than it used to, and with all the investments and redevelopments that will trickle down to Pineville will make it look a whole lot better.

" must have government force to take from the general population to pay for something the private market would never pay for."

ahh, our commentator has stumbled upon the bane of all neocons. They are unable to understand that there are things that the private market will never provide that society has gotta have: sewer, police protection, national defense, and a means for people who can't afford a car to get to work.

Don't misunderstand, I detest all government, not just one area. I can make the arguments against all government, including fire and police. For example - police are unnecessary except people are too uncivilized to live without them.Firemen should be privatized and a fee charged per structure etc.Education should be a private issue between parents and children.

Rail Lite may be beneficial to a few people, but the problem is the amount of money wasted and the lack of results per dollar spent.

The arguments typically supporting ignore the waste and the results and usually may be reduced to: I like it, spend someone elses money on it, use government force to take the money.

Good solid socialistic idealism.

By the by - are any of you supporters donating your money above the amount required by government?

Volunteers - pay 1% or 10%Or is your support limited to comments and like one anon says: 1/2 cent is so measly - so pay more. Ron Tober will hardly refuse the offer - spend it on offices I'll wager.

Lewis

This is reiterated by the personal attacks and emotionalisms which accompanying many of the comments of those who disagree with others.

Lewis, we already chose to give money to the light rail project, plus the expanded bus system some of you conveniently omit. We passed a referendum on it back in 1998 and we will probably vote to keep it this year.

If you don't want to contribute, move and shop on the other side of the county line and do absolutely no Charlotte related business (good luck there).

Libertarians have just as warped view as some hardcore socialists do. Both have this utopian vision and contemplete, "If only the others would follow".

The big fear here is not about taxes or transit, it's about the fact that Charlotte is becoming a big, urban center, and that the old provincial Southern way of thinking is finally disappearing. That east at a lot of people for whatever reason.

"By the by - are any of you supporters donating your money above the amount required by government?"

this is quite a straw man. its been shown time and time again that it costs the city more to provide services to suburbanites (people who live in low density communities). Should these folks be paying higher property taxes (per 1000), higher water fees, more for police? They are not carrying their share.

yup, lets end this crazy notion. Anyone who builds a house in a location where schools are at capacity needs to pay an impact fee to build a new school. I am tired of paying for new schools to be built in sprawlville.

The difference between subsidies and normal government activities is not very difficult to discern if one will take a moment to think.

Building a road, operating a bus, running a police force, and providing a park are paid for with taxes which are not a subsidy to those who use them.

Neither is a tax deduction for a mortgage payment a subsidy - it is a reduction in obligation, which is not the same. The obligation does not go away, it is reduced. The person first has to pay in order to have the deduction available, but I would agree the distinction here is minor, as there is a return.

If the whitewater park pays its own bills the taxpayers will not have subsidized it, but if it does not pay its bills and the taxpayers have to fork over any amount, then the owners, operators and banks have benefitted from a direct subsidy.

In the case of Rail Lite, those who benefit directly are the developers and administration - not the riders. Both their jobs and business projects are being directly subsidized.

Even there I could argue the admin jobs are not, but the projects of the developers are.

"Building a road, operating a bus, running a police force, and providing a park are paid for with taxes which are not a subsidy to those who use them."

I agree with you and the distinction between a subsidy and normal operating expenditures. It does however become a subsidy when a group who does not use a public good (a school system lets say) contributes payments to operate that system. In this sense the tax payments of people without kids subsidises a system which is only used by people with kids. The transfer of $$$ from one group to another in this form functions as a a subsidy.

In this same way urban residents (via their tax payments and the lower cost of providing services to people in densely populated areas) subsidise suburbanites who pay taxes at the same rates but require larger capital expenditures to get services.

Anon 4:30 PM says: "It does however become a subsidy when a group who does not use a public good (a school system lets say) contributes payments to operate that system. In this sense the tax payments of people without kids subsidises a system which is only used by people with kids. The transfer of $$$ from one group to another in this form functions as a a subsidy."

I would almost agree with you except for the form of the expenditure. It is much the same argument as to who uses which roads. The students don't have a choice in the matter and everyone benefits from the education of children. Beyond that, the students don't directly benefit financially as one does from a true subsidy, and further, they are forced to go.

It is more similar to police, courts and roads in that way.

For the Anon who takes issue with my using the term Rail Lite. SO! And I don't like people making remarks without identifying themselves. Are you now going to identify yourself?

"Neither is a tax deduction for a mortgage payment a subsidy - it is a reduction in obligation, which is not the same. The obligation does not go away, it is reduced."

yes, I understand what you are saying but if you expand your perspective then it is aparent that this forgone tax revenue needs to be made up somewhere else. So other taxes are levied which shift the burden of paying for services to others.

However, since this is a federal deduction its not so relevant to our discussion of Charlotte transit (mea culpa)

"I would almost agree with you except for the form of the expenditure. The students don't have a choice in the matter and everyone benefits from the education of children. Beyond that, the students don't directly benefit financially as one does from a true subsidy, and further, they are forced to go."

yes, we are close to agreement here. I would argue two points, first the subsidy (that I refer to) is not directed at the children but rather to the parents who would otherwise incur a direct cost to educate their offspring. In this sense this transfer does make a 'financial benefit'

Second, I agree with your statement that 'everyone benefits from the education of children.' I think everyones source of disagreement comes from the fact that some believe that LRT will be a benefit to everyone (due to its ability to stimulate a denser (and presumably more sustainable) urban environment given time).

If LRT can increase residential density in the part of town that it serves then surplus property tax revenue can be collected and redirected to serve the more expensive low-density suburban communities. If this happens (and I recognize that it is uncertain) the line would benefit all Mecklenburg residents. The debate seems to be about the probability of that occuring.

Anon 7:20 says: "If LRT can increase residential density in the part of town that it serves then surplus property tax revenue can be collected and redirected to serve the more expensive low-density suburban communities. If this happens (and I recognize that it is uncertain) the line would benefit all Mecklenburg residents. The debate seems to be about the probability of that occuring."

First and foremost I have a problem with government expenditures which are at root, designed with the idea of create a higher tax base. This is the antithesis of government function. However, as it has been used as an excuse for numerous programs etc yet taxes keep increasing, I suggest it is a false premise designed to further the ulterior designs of those who actually benefit.

The debate is about many things. Personally I have no problem with expenditures directed towards public transit (leaving my therotically arguments aside), my problem is with waste, misallocation of funds and results per $ spent. Buses and roads are much more efficacious ways to provide transit.

Further, I wonder why anything is charged for a ride. If it is so wonderful, give it away. (wouldn't UD be pleased)

yes, this is certainly true in the short term. But if we are going to spend public money on transit at all, we may as well spend on the mode that might (at some point in the future) create additional tax revenue from increased residential density.

"Please show how the expenditures are repaid, if ever, in higher tax revenues."

lets say 20,000 parcels are within 1 mile of the line. If people see the line as a amenity (that would possibly get them to work faster or cheaper than in their buicks) then property values along the line will increase. If the value of each parcel increases such that they pay an additional $800 / year in property tax then the $371 million in repaid in 20 years. While the $800 / year figure is steep it can be obtained via increases in density and intensity.

Yes, a 20 year payback is speculative and lengthy.

As a bonus this process does exactly what you have been demanding, the people who benefit most from the line pay for it via higher assessments.

Anon @ 10:45: Don't you see, though, that using the light rail to encourage high-density housing to develop is an artificial means of accomplishing that goal?

We have plenty of high-density housing (condos and apartments) in Uptown, not because of some überexpensive taxpayer-funded enterprise, but because land in Uptown is expensive due to its proximity to the big office buildings and other attractions (restaurants, the stadium, etc.). High-density living Uptown is a NECESSITY due to the high price and low availability of land. This all occurred naturally, using only market forces as a guide.

In the case of the light rail, you've got a bunch of land that was NEVER going to have high value because of the nature of the neighborhoods around it (light industrial, cheap housing), which the city could grab fairly easily in order to resell it (often at a LOSS) to developers who promise to build high-density housing on it. They've artificially created demand for the land, just to provide a pool of potential light-rail users. What's being done in the South Corridor is akin to building a city of skyscrapers in the middle of a prairie; NYC and SF don't have tall buildings just because they wanted to, but because they NEEDED to in order to best use the scarce land at their disposal.

An $800 increase in taxes requires an increase in value of $177777 at at 45 mil tax rate.

This may occur without the amenity, thus who can tell?

It may not occur, as you admit in using the word speculative.

In either case it is not within the purview of government, making investments to increase taxes??????

No, that is a business function.

The rail, or road or school should stand on its own merits as something government should do, which is then a legitimate use of taxes.

Speculating we may improve tax revenues by doing something is not something which should be entertained, much less done.

If we must tax the people, then tax them for legitimate purposes, not some esoteric thought which seems to belong to someone who only wishes he were in business but does not have the personal fortitude to do so, working for government where the pay is regular despite the economy and the financial condition of those who must pay their taxes or be thrown out, or even jailed.

The irony of this just occurred to me: While many conservatives believe in Creationism (i.e., God created the Universe and humanity), they tend to favor when towns, cities, etc. EVOLVE naturally. For example, a light rail line would be built by a private concern once there was sufficient, naturally-occurring demand to support it.

Conversely, many liberals believe in Evolution (i.e., humanity is the end result of countless generations of genetic mutation and natural selection), and they seem to favor when towns, cities, etc. are CREATED by government fiat, usually funded by taxes. Using the above example, the taxpayer-funded light rail is seen as a catalyst for growth which might never occur without government sticking its nose into such areas as property condemnation and eminent domain.

It really all does boil down to whether the cart should follow the horse, or vice versa.

"If the new buildings are paying more property taxes than the previous land use then how is this not a benefit to the city?"

It's not that increased taxes wouldn't benefit the city. The ends do not always justify the means. One (just one) problem is that there is no guarantee that the increased property taxes along that corridor will make up for the huge expense of the light rail line in the first place.

Another problem is that the city doesn't need to be in the business of artificially creating demand for certain land by building a new, expensive light rail line at a time when there is virtually no demand (and where any future increase in demand is purely speculative). The price of land should go up because the market says so, not because the government says so.

What's being done is akin to having your idiot cousin (the government) use $100 of your money to buy lottery tickets every week. Sure, there might be a payoff at some point and you might break even, but maybe not... and in the meantime, the breadwinner of the family (the taxpayers) is wondering if that money wouldn't be better spent somewhere else, or simply banked.

"One (just one) problem is that there is no guarantee that the increased property taxes along that corridor will make up for the huge expense of the light rail line in the first place."

yup, there is certainly risk to LRT development. But there is risk in ANY investment (public or private). IMO the risk reward of the LRT is acceptable ($371 million for a chance at developing a sustainable urban landscape). While the risk-reward of 485 is unacceptable since the billion+ expenditure will merely result in a temporary reduction in congestion.

"Another problem is that the city doesn't need to be in the business of artificially creating demand for certain land"

so Clay, where do you think the suburbs came from? Were they a triumph of the free market and organic evolution?

No, they were the product of social engineering on a massive scale. Suburban development occured where the city invested in speculative water and sewer lines and where the state and federal govt invested in HIGHLY speculative highways from the center cities out into farmland which had yet to develop.

How is LRT development any different from this process? Why is it so hard to imagine that this investment might (and I stress the word might -- this is a speculative venture) create similar changes in urban form?

Ok, I now see the LTR arguement shifting to gov-co being a real estate speculator with tax payer funds. Exactly who really believes gov-co can out-perform the private real estate markets? Good grief, what a pipe dream.

Anyway, by speculating gov-co will supposedly increase the tax base in a tax rate neutral manner (another pipe dream...I doubt Parks Helms or City Council will ever stop increasing taxes). Our newfound utopia will be funded by ever increasing property values that lead to greater tax receipts that will pay off subsidies and investments.

Ok...then explain how the new baseball stadium plan, approved by our spend-every-dime county commision, fits this scenario. Our englightened leadership will REBATE the property taxes for the stadium back to the Knights. This is supposed to "reimburse" infrastructure costs. Local gov-co will not realize any tax revenue benefit for at least 2 decades! What a deal. I'll build 3 stadiums for that deal! And I am sure that gov-co will ensure the Knights get the absolute best loan terms.

Sorry LTR cheerleaders and others, you just can't have it both ways (ie: rebating property taxes for one subsidized thing and saying increased property taxes will pay for another subsidized thing). We need to focus on the things we are ignoring as we chase shiny new toys: public safety, prosecution of crime and improvement of our education system. Those basic elements will sustain our region, not shiny trains and baseball parks.

I understand that some people have an idelology that government should not be involved in development. It looks like we will have a referendum on that belief in November.

It is however, naive to believe that cities should not and have not been involved in development. As long as the city (or any other govt agency) makes decisions about infrastructure (water, sewer, roads, fire and police), levies property tax and makes zoning codes the city will forever be involved in the development process. The 'state' (be it city, county, state or federal govt) has shaped cities via these decisions since the dawn of municipal government.

Suburbanization was the most notable (and successful) govt effort in land development -- the goal was to encourage American's to consume in order to stimulate the post depression (and war) economy.

The expectation that the state can (or should) suddenly stop being involved in urban development suggests (to me) that people choose to ignore the history of successful (and unsuccessful) urban growth

"Sorry LTR cheerleaders and others, you just can't have it both ways (ie: rebating property taxes for one subsidized thing and saying increased property taxes will pay for another subsidized thing)."

I agree, but this cuts both ways. The anti-progress is on thin ice when they suggest that their lifestyles are free from govt subsidy when they are certainly not. Everyone who lives in the burbs is consuming city services that are subsidised by taxpayers in more densely populated portions of the city. As soon as suburbanites see a subsidy that does not directly benefit them they scream that its 'morally wrong.' Pot, kettle, black....

I agree, but this cuts both ways. The anti-progress is on thin ice when they suggest that their lifestyles are free from govt subsidy when they are certainly not. Everyone who lives in the burbs is consuming city services that are subsidised by taxpayers in more densely populated portions of the city. As soon as suburbanites see a subsidy that does not directly benefit them they scream that its 'morally wrong.' Pot, kettle, black....

But I do consume more in government than I pay for. So who is paying it, the folks living downtown - give me a break. They use more services than I do.

Almost, if not every, demographic group uses more in government services than it pays for.

The reason is how much business pays in taxes. So add to my personal payment the percentage of the taxes my company pays which could be attributed to my employment, then after you do that math, start pointing fingers and making accusations.

"The reason is how much business pays in taxes. So add to my personal payment the percentage of the taxes my company pays which could be attributed to my employment, then after you do that math, start pointing fingers and making accusations."

why are you assuming that you have more business income and higher property tax bills than a center city resident? You are making some very poorly informed assumptions about demographics.

Anon 10:03 PM said: "...why are you assuming that you have more business income and higher property tax bills than a center city resident? You are making some very poorly informed assumptions about demographics."

I am not, and did not.It is a relative comparison.

Businesses pay taxes. Individuals pay taxes. Businesses use some government services as do individuals.

The taxes a business pays which can be attributed to an employee are not paid by the employee, but can be considered as part of his contribution to tax revenues.

So if someone who lives in Gaston Cnty works in Mecklenburg then the taxes his business pays as part of employing him and having a place for him to work, go to Mecklenburg not Gaston. If he lives in the same county where he works, then those taxes go to the same county.

This is true of anyone who works.

The point is individual and family consumption of government services is almost always greater than the taxes they pay. The difference being made up by business.

I never directly used my personal tax bill and wouldn't.There are thousands of people who make more than me and whose properties pay more taxes than mine.

"The taxes a business pays which can be attributed to an employee are not paid by the employee, but can be considered as part of his contribution to tax revenues."

apologies for the misunderstanding. I agree with your statement above. However, that does not change the math above -- suburbanites are always more costly than center city residents but thay never pay the higher costs of their lifestyles, they let other taxpayers (and ratepayers) do it for them.

btw: just because you don't use the police does not mean that you are not an expense to them (they need to maintain the ability to respond to calls at your home and business)

Anon 9:07 AM said: "-- suburbanites are always more costly than center city residents but thay never pay the higher costs of their lifestyles, they let other taxpayers (and ratepayers) do it for them."

While this line of argument is interesting it is actually immaterial. Some people will always pay relatively more than others especially when considering their usage of government services.

My point is almost always about waste and government being involved in things it shouldn't be.

"While this line of argument is interesting it is actually immaterial."

Lewis, I disagree. When you post statements like:

"Let us be clear - the issue is about stealing from the many to give to the few." (from 5/10)

Then the existence of other subsidies in the urban economic system become highly relevant. If you believe that the S LRT is offensive because of its subsidy by non-riders (which you imply it is above) then why is this suburban subsidy not equally offensive to you?

"My point is almost always about waste and government being involved in things it shouldn't be."

your waste arguments are clear (and persuasive when viewing LRT with a very short time horizon). However, I have discussed in this thread before that the LRT project is no different from the city's role in the creation of Mecklenburg county suburban subdivisions. The LRT is social engineering, but all cities have been involved in social engineering since the dawn of public utilities and zoning. Why is this particualr form of urban development project so offensive to you?

More inconsistencies and missing information in the report done by our scholars. Some of this stuff is so obvious, it makes me wonder about using that term.

Why do they forecast the expected income from the 1/2 cent sales tax for several years out, but they can't, don't, or won't tell us the percentage that will be going to the buses rather than rail in those same years. They only say that it is 65% now. My guess is that's because the percentage will begin dropping after next year as more goes down the rail sink hole. Once the North line starts getting built with no Federal funding starting in 2009 those percentages will begin to shift. They also hide this fact in the mixing of capital cost numbers for Bus and rail. Obviously the number of buses being bought by CATS is not going to continue on the same pace in the years ahead as it has in the recent past. This money will be shifted to the capital costs and associated debt service of South Blvd and any new rail lines.

Next, why would scholars assume that all of the uptown development should be considered TOD? Many, if not, all of the towers within 277 would have been built anyway. The South Blvd development definitely should count towards rail, but the Uptown towers are questionable at best. The report sited by the “scholars” took numbers directly from a CharMeck Planning Dept presentation – hardly unbiased scholarly research. They are the biggest rail-at-all-costs cheerleaders around. I’ll site the following major developments as validation that development in Charlotte occurs without rail. Griffith Lakes, Bryton, and the Gandy developments along the proposed North Corridor and Old Statesville Rd have all said they will be going forward even if the transit tax is repealed and the North Corridor line is never built. Sure, the development will change somewhat and be less dense, but it will move forward.

Finally, the scholars disingenuously mention several other funding options in the event of repeal of the current transit sales tax without mentioning an alternative sale tax directed solely at buses. Most of their options would also require going to Raleigh, but they play along with the mayor’s scare tactics by implying that raising property taxes is the only quick and easy way to proceed.

Light rail is already over budget (imagine that). It doesn't come close to anywhere that I would ride from, and it doesn't go anywhere that I would ride to.

Perhaps I485 would have been a better investment, especially between Providence Road and South Boulevard. I'm sure that there are many people there who wish that light rail will solve the 6.5 mile 40 minute trip during rush hour. I don't think that is going to happen, though.

About Mary and The Naked City blog

Mary Newsom is an Observer associate editor and op-ed columnist who's been covering growth, neighborhoods, urban design, sustainable development and related topics since 1995. In "The Naked City" you'll read her take on those topics and others.